EUROPEAN ATTITUDES TOWARDS
URBAN TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
-SURVEY
REPORTfor
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
and
THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT (UITP)
INRA(EUROPE)
EUROPEAN COORDINATION OFFICE sa
July 1991
INRA (EUROPE) • European Coord.notion Office SA/NV - 16. Avenue R Vondendriessche. 1150 Brussels • Belgium
Tel «32/2/772 44 44 - Fox «32/2/772 40.79 - TVA 437 100 707 - RCB . 518 441
Introduction
Over the past years, the problems caused by rapidly increasing urban car traffic have
received more and more attention both from the citizens directly concerned and from
political decision makers. Most Industrialized societies have witnessed a growing
environmental sensitivity and an increasing concern about the negative consequences of
excessive car traffic on the health of the urban population and on the quality of life in inner
cities. This evolution has pushed the issue of fundamental re-orientation of urban traffic
planning and the future of public transport to the centre of public attention.
Therefore the COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES decided to set up a
Europe-wide public opinion study on the attitudes of EC citizens about the urban traffic
problems and public transport. It involves three different Directorates General of the
Commission of the EC:
• DG VII • TRANSPORT responsible for the matter of PUBLIC TRANSPORT
• DG XVII • ENERGY, with a focus on the analysis of all energy related aspects of
the problem of urban congestion
• DG XI • ENVIRONMENT, NUCLEAR SAFETY AND CIVIL DEFENCE, introducing the
environmental issues in the research programme
The project was supported by the INTERNATIONAL UNION of PUBLIC TRANSPORT (UITP).
The study was organised in the framework of the regular EUROBAROMETER surveys and
had the following aims:
to precisely identify the perceptions of the citizens; their problem-awareness and
their own preferences for different solutions to the problems described;
to compare the different national results in order to identify national specificities
and common European problems;
to use the insights gained in the citizens' perceptions to actively promote a policy
in favour of public transport.
Although national results are, of course, comparable with each other, the attention of the
reader should be drawn to the fact that interpreting such differences and their underlying
reasons must always take the different national backgrounds into account: not only
different national infrastructures in the field of public transport, different degrees of
urbanization and car ownership, but also diverging socio-cultural patterns like
receptiveness to 'green issues' must be taken into consideration. To show how important
a role national transport structures and consumer behaviour plays, 70% of the Dutch
population use a bicycle everyday or at least several times a week. Such factors cannot
be ignored when developing national policies.
The results presented in this study have been obtained during face-to-face interviews with
a representative sample of the European population1. Fieldwork was carried out between
April 2nd, 1991 and April 22nd, 1991 in the framework of the EUROBAROMETER-study
of the Commission of the EC. INRA (Europe) is responsible for the coordination of the
survey, data-processing and data analysis, and the final contents of this report.
Data of this type needs to be analyzed carefully before drawing final conclusions. Attitudes
of respondents need to be verified beyond face-value. Especially in matters of intensive
public debate, such as urban congestion and public transport, the "social desirability" of
certain opinions can, to a certain extent, guide the respondents in their answers.
In accordance with the normal practice for this type of survey the COMMISSION OF THE
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES disclaims all responsibility for questions, results and
commentaries. The report, written by INRA(EUROPE) does not necessarily express the
view of the Commission of the European Communities or of U1TP.
•i-
Content:
page
Summary: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-1 •
I) Perception of the present situation ..............................
- 1-
A) Evolution of car traffic in urban areas over the past 10 years. . . . . . . . . . . . .
-1-
B) Consequences of urban car t r a f f i c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-4-
C) Car traffic as a source of air deterioration in urban centres . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-6-
D) Car traffic as a source of air deterioration in living areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-8-
E) Risk of traffic accidents in urban areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -10 -
II) Opinion about traffic planning ..................................
-13 -
A) Which preferential treatment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 13 -
B) Correct judgement by political decision makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -16 -
III) Which means of transport do people use ....................... -19 A) Who uses public transport and how often? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 21 1. Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 21 2. Tram. Metro. Train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 24 -
B) Private cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 26 -
1: Private cars as driver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 26 2: Private cars as passengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 28 C) Bicycles, mopeds and motorbikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 29 -
IV) Reasons for not using public transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 31 A) There are no convenient lines of public transport, catering for my needs, for
example the schedules are not convenient for me or public transport
doesn't go where I want to go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 B) Public transport is too stow, takes too long . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 33 C) Public transport is too restricting for me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 35 -
D) Public transport is too expensive / public transport is not regular, you cannot
trust the schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -36 E) Various other reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 38 -
.ii.
V) Reasons for using public transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 43A) Public transport is a comfortable and practical means of getting around ...
- 44 -
B) I don't have a car or motorbike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 46 C) Public transport is cheap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 47 D) Public transport is regular, one can trust the schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 48 E) Public transport enables me to save time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 49 F) Public transport avoids accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 50 G) Public transport does not cause much pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 51 H) Various other arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 52 -
VI) Support for different statements about public transport . . . . . . . . . - 55 A) Confrontation wrth other kinds of people. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 55 B) Changes in petrol prices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 56 C) Confidence in technological progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 57 D) Increasing cost for the use of cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 58 -
VII. Possible solutions for traffic congestion problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 61 A) Developing public transport .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 61 -
B) Creating more pedestrian areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 63 C) Limiting car traffic in town centres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
64 -
D) Building new urban highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 65E) Tight parking restrictions in centres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 67 F) Motorist toll for entering urban centres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 69 G) Putting up petrol prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 70 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES:
Appendix I : Technical specifications of EUROBAROMETER 35.1
Appendix II: Description of the sample
Appendix III: Questionnaire
. 71 -
Summary:
In this summary we concentrate on the results of this survey at the European level A survey on
opinion and behaviour regarding traffic problems, public and private transport and its consequences, should of course take differences between the various countries into account In the
detailed report that follows, country-by-country and socio-demographic differences are described
extensively.
Car traffic: how big is the problem?
Two thirds of the European citizens are of the opinion that car traffic in urban areas has gotten
worse over the past ten years.
Almost six out of ten Europeans consider the consequences of car traffic in their urban area as
unbearable or hardly bearable. And almost all of those (90%) consider car traffic as the main or
as an important cause of the deterioration of air quality.
Figure 1
Three quarters of all European citizens consider car traffic as responsible tor the deterioration of
air quality in inner cities. In the areas where people live. the situation is perceived to be less
dramatic, but stilt close to half of the people see cars as a source of air deterioration there, too.
.iiAir quality deterioration is seen as the main negative effect of car traffic, but the risk of traffic
accidents is also seen as important Almost seven out of ten European citizens see "some" or
"high" risks for cyclists (eight out of ten of those who find that the consequences of car traffic are
"unbearable").
The perceived risk for pedestrians is somewhat lower, the risk for public transport users is seen
as the lowest
Preference for future traffic situation : citizens and politicians.
Two thirds of all European citizens opt for a preferential treatment of public transport, when
conflicts arise in traffic planning decisions between cars on the one hand, and public transport
on the other. This opinion is largely shared by people who frequently use cars themselves.
A majority of European citizens find that political decision makers do not judge people's feelings
on traffic planning correctly; only 19% think that politicians have the correct judgement. One third
of all Europeans citizens think that people are less in favour of cars than politicians think they are
(that is 50 % of those who express an opinion about politicians' judgement and 68% of those
who think politicians are wrong in their judgement of people's feelings).
Figure 2
•IllEight out of ten EC citizens consider developing public transport to be an effective means to
solve traffic congestion problems. Other effective means consist of creating more pedestrian
areas (75%), and strictly limiting car traffic in urban centres (71%).
Cost increasing measures (toll for cars in city centres and increasing petrol prices) are seen as
less effective by the citizens.
Why not use public transport?
There are no convenient lines of public transport, catering for my needs, for example the
schedules are not convenient for me or public transport doesn't go where I want to go." This is
the main reason why four out of ten persons of those, who never or occasionally use public
transport (69% of all EC citizens) do so.
Figure 3: basis = those using public transport occasionally or never; N = 6855.
Public transport is also perceived as too stow. takes too long" (29% of non users), too restricting
for me" (21 %); "public transport is not regular, you cannot trust the schedules", say 18%. Detailed
analysis (Chapter IV) show that these reasons are mainly given by people who belong to the
"white collar" professions. Related to that: most of these reasons are supported by those working
-IV-
in urban areas. "Opinion leaders", those who tend to discuss their views with others and try to
persuade them, are also the ones who tend to give these reasons for not using public transport
19% of non public transport users say ft is too expensive.
Motives for using public transport
With a view to publicity measures, it is of crucial importance to be well aware of those motives that
are listed by people who do use public transport (29% of all interviewees).
Figure 4: basis = those using public transport at least once a week; N = 3719.
More than four out of ten public transport users find it "a comfortable and practical means of
getting around". But we should warn that opinion leaders are less positive about this point than
others.
While we observed before that one out of five non-users found public transport too expensive.
we now observe that almost one out of every three users find it cheap.
-V-
21% of the users find public transport "regular, one can trust the schedules", and 20% say rt
"enables me to save time". The fact that public transport prevents accidents is a reason that plays
a role for 18% of the users.
15% of them use it because public transport does not cause much pollution. These observations
are important when confronted with the previous findings: although large majorities of the
European population are convinced that pollution and accident risks are related to car traffic in
urban areas, these negative factors only manage to motivate 4% to 6% of the total population to
use public transport.
It is also important to note that opinion leaders support both arguments (pollution and accident
risk) rather strongly.
Five concluding statements on usage versus non'usage.
1.
In general terms we can observe that nearly the same type of arguments, motivating the
users positively, are used by non users in a negative way.
2.
People appear to be very much aware of traffic congestion problems, have very negative
opinions about it. but this hardly makes them decide to use public transport.
3.
Objective advantages of public transport, when available, seem to play a role in people's
behaviour, but only a limited one.
4.
But their awareness of the traffic problems, certainty in urban areas, makes them say that
public transport should be further developed and car traffic limited, whether they are car
users or not
5.
This is what people expect from urban planning and, consequently, from urban political
decision makers. Citizens feel that politicians overestimate them in being in favour of cars.
- 1-
I) Perception of the present situation
A) Evolution of car traffic in urban areas over the past 10 years.
65% of European citizens are of the opinion, that car traffic has become worse in the course of
the past decade. The question, if car traffic in urban areas has improved, has not changed or has
got somewhat worse over the past 10 years, was the starting point of the analysis. Only a very
small minority (14%) thinks that the situation has improved.
Figure 5
E v o l u t i o n of car t r a f f i c i n
u r b a n areas over past 10 years
In all EC member states, the perception of an aggravating situation obtained a significantly
stronger support than the opposite answer. In eight out of twelve countries, more than 60% of all
interviewed shared such a negative view: Italy (83% "worse": 5% "improved"). the United Kingdom
(83%: 7%), Luxembourg (75%: 9%), and Greece (72%: 11%) are situated above the European
.2-
average (65% : 14%). In Spain (62% : 16%). Belgium (62% : 15%), Germany (62% : 13%) and
Ireland (62%: 22%), the results confirm this tendency to a slightly tower degree. In Prance (45%
: 23%), the Netherlands (45% : 25%), Portugal (43% : 30%) and Denmark (40% : 22%), the
evolution of car traffic is perceived as less threatening than in the other countries. But still, a carcritical attitude prevails.
All interviewees were asked about their 'degree of urbanization', that is the fact of living and/or
working in an urban area of more than 100.000 inhabitants. Within the total population, those
living and/or working in an urban area in general display a more negative perception of the
situation (11% "improved" vs. 71 % "has got worse") than the EC average. Quite naturally, those
interviewed who are not living or working in an urban area, were slightly less pessimistic: 16 %
thought that the situation has improved, and 60% believed that the situation has become worse still an absolute majority. The same is valid even for frequent car users: 66% of them replied that
car traffic has got worse.
The results of all questions can be confronted with socio-demographic variables like age, sex,
opinion-leadership2, education, profession, etc. of all respondents. A closer look at the results
of this question reveals the following details: with increasing age, the interviewed become more
car-critical; the same is true for opinion-leaders.
The occupational status of the interviewed has been summarized to group the results into the
following categories:
Independent: Farmer/fishermen, professional (lawyers, medical practitioners, etc.), shop- or
company owners.
'White collar": employed professional, general management, middle management, other office
employees, non-office employees (non manual);
'blue collar':
supervisors, skilled manual workers, other manual workers;
other:
retired, housewife or not otherwise employed, military service or temporarily not
working.
-3-
Table 1: Degree of urbanization by different professional groups (%, EC 12+).
In the case of the question, whether in the course of the past 10 years the car traffic had
changed, the results obtained from the several groups particularly stand out: employed
professionals (82% "worse": 8% "improved"), independent professionals (76%: 8%), and other
office employees (72%: 11 %) are of the opinion that car traffic in urban areas has become worse.
These professional categories can be considered as the groups most directly concerned by
urban traffic problems: 'white collar' workers appear to be concentrated (living and/or working)
in urban areas (see table 1). They are thus more frequently affected by urban traffic difficulties.
and - as we will see later - they more frequently opt for the development of public transport as
the best solution to these difficulties.
-4-
B) Consequences of urban car traffic.
"Would you say that the consequences of car traffic in this urban area are bearable, hardly
bearable, or unbearable?" The responses obtained to this question widely vary across the EC
countries. With the exception of Denmark, where 71 % of interviewees think that the consequences
of urban car traffic are "bearable", people from most of the other member states consider cars
as an important nuisance for urban areas.
Figure 6
The average results for the EC (56% "hardly bearable" and "unbearable", as opposed to 39%
"bearable") clearly show that most Europeans are aware of the damage to the orban environment
In three countries. Italy (80% : 15%), Greece (71% : 26%) and Luxembourg (69 % : 29%). this
perception is particularly widespread. In Spain (61% : 36%). Belgium (59% : 39%). the Netherlands (53%: 39%). and Germany (52%: 44%), still more than half of all interviewed are sceptical
about the effects caused by cars. Portugal (49% : 42%). France (49% : 47%) and the United
-5-
Kingdom (48%: 50%) show a more or less balanced score. Only in two countries - Ireland (40%
: 56%) and Denmark (26% : 71%) - we find a dear majority of those thinking that the consequences are "bearable".
On the EC level, these negative consequences are perceived stronger by opinion leaders and
older people. But also people in the two age groups (25-39 and 40-54 years) that make most
frequently use of a car (see chapter III.B of this report) do not particularly deny the negative
consequences of cars: only 39% respectively 41% think these are "bearable".
An analysis by usage of public transport against non-usage shows that the evaluation of the traffic
situation in urban centres is not related to actual usage of public transport Those who think that
the situation is "hardly bearable* or "unbearable" do not use public transport more frequently than
others.
Within the professional categories, independent professionals, office employees and retired
persons were more critical towards cars than average; responses obtained from the general and
the middle management were less critical Apparently urbanization did not influence the answers:
even 54% of those not living or working in an urban area confirmed that consequences were
"hardly bearable" or "unbearable", as opposed to 41 % saying that the situation is "bearable". The
results obtained from interviewees living and working in cities (40% "bearable" against 60%
"hardly/not bearable") were only slightly higher.
The results of all questions have further been confronted with the results obtained from one
specific question: whether interviewees believe that local politicians in urban areas correctly
interpret people's feelings in the domain of traffic planning. In case of a negative answer, two
alternatives were put forward: a) no. politicians believe that people are more in favour of cars than
they actually are in reality: b) no, politicians believe that people are less in favour of cars than
they actually are in reality. A cross-tabulation of these results allows us to analyze, what precisely
the groups of those satisfied or unsatisfied with the judgement of urban politicians think about the
present traffic situation and possible solutions suggested.
In the specific case of evaluating the consequences of urban car traffic, the group that thinks
political decision-makers do judge people's feelings correctly were in fact the only ones showing
a majority (57%) to assess the car situation as "bearable".
-6-
C) Car traffic as a source of air deterioration in urban centres.
A broad majority (76%) of all Europeans believe, that cars are to a large extent responsible for
the deterioration of the air quality in inner cities. We are not aware of any front-page news on
smog-alarm or smog-related traffic restrictions on cars during the interviewing period, so it would
seem that a large majority of Europeans is aware of the negative impact of cars.
Figure 7
For the sake of presenting a dear overview, the different answer-categories of this question have
been grouped in the graphics: 'pro-car' answers are on the right, 'anti-car' answers are on the
left. On the EC average, the answers of those thinking that cars are "an important cause of air
deterioration among other sources" (42%) or even "the main cause" (34%) add up to 76%.
compared with 21% thinking that cars are relatively harmless in this respect
A comparison of the national results shows that the Italians are particularly worried (93% harmful
: 4% harmless). In nine out of twelve countries. 2/3 of all interviewees share the view that cars are
damaging the air-quality in urban centres. In the remaining three countries, an absolute majority
.7.
does. These results clearly underline how strong these convictions are in all EC countries. It
should be noted as well, that the percentage of those thinking that cars do not cause any deterioration at all was extremely weak all over Europe, varying between 17% in Greece and 1% in the
Eastern part of Germany and in Italy. Compared to that, the percentage of those in support of
the other extreme point of view - that cars are the main cause for a deterioration - was
significantly higher in all countries: the minimum was 19% in the Netherlands, the EC average was
34%, and the maximum - obtained in Italy - was 50%.
The following social groups share a more critical attitude towards cars: young people (79%
harmful: 18% harmless), the better educated (79%: 19%), students (82%: 16%), and people with
a high score on the opinion leadership index:
Among the professional groups, office employees (86% harmful: 12% harmless), independent
professionals (85%: 13%). and employed professionals (83%: 14%) had a more critical attitude
towards cars than the EC average in general and the different sub-groups of workers and the
non-professionalty active in particular.
Once again, those of the interviewed who are directly affected by the problem because they are
living and working in a city. showed a more critical attitude towards cars: 85% believed that cars
are to an important degree responsible for the decline of the quality of air in urban centres: only
14% thought that cars only cause slight or no deteriorations at all. Those living and working
outside urban centres were again slightly less critical (69% vs. 26%).
The group of respondents, who considered the present situation as "unbearable", were the ones
to particularly consider cars as mainly responsible for the deterioration of air quality in urban
centres:
.8.
those saying
•bearable*
those saying
•hardly bearable*
those saying
•unbearable'
average
EC 12
care an the main cause
tor air deterioration
22%
37%
50%
34%
cars are an important
cause, among others
40%
49%
40%
42%
cars only cause
alight deteriorations
25%
10%
8%
15%
cam do not cause any
deterioration at all
11%
3%
2%
6%
dont know, no answer
3%
2%
2%
4%
Total
101%
101%
100%
101%
D) Car traffic as a source of air deterioration in living areas.
The second part of this question was probing more specifically into the effects of cars on the
quality of air in the living areas of the interviewed. It led to different results: On the EC level, a
majority (52%) now believes that cars only cause "slight deteriorations* or even "no deterioration
at air in living areas. 44% think, that cars are the main cause or an important cause among others
for the degradation of the air quality.
Only in Italy the relation which is favourable for cars was reversed: 52% of Italians thought that
cars were harmful to the air-quality in their living areas, while 46% said that cars were harmless
in this respect In all other countries, the interviewees - to a rather widely varying degree supported the view that cars are not the main cause for air deterioration. Once again, we find
Denmark (26% harmful: 66% harmless) and Ireland (24% : 71%) at the bottom of our ranking.
Those with a higher education and those who are to be considered opinion leaders scored above
the overall EC average. A majority of employed professionals and other office employees (56%
and 53% respectively) were convinced of the rather negative consequences of cars for their living
area. On the other side, farmers were particularly convinced of the insignificance of cars in this
case: only 16% considered them as harmful
.9.
Figure 8
Car users (42% harmful vs. 54% harmless), and - to an even higher degree - those neither living
nor working in urban areas (31% vs. 64%) believed that cars are only to a small proportion
responsible for the bad air in living areas. Among those, who actually live and work in cities, this
perception was reversed: 64% of these urban residents agreed upon the large responsibility of
cars for the deterioration of air quality. The same was the case for the majority of public transport
users (55% vs. 42%).
As in the case of the previous part of the question, interviewees who were particularly critical
towards the consequences of car traffic also tend to think that cars are responsible for the
deteriorating air quality in living areas: A clear majority (55%) of those saying that consequences
of car traffic were "unbearable" expressed the opinion, that cars are harmful to the air quality in
living areas, compared to 43% of all EC citizens.
.10-
E) Risk of traffic accidents in urban areas
The interviewees were asked to evaluate • on a scale ranking from 1 (= low risk) to 6 (= high
risk) - the risk of traffic accidents in urban areas that users of different means of transport are
running (pedestrians, cyclists, car drivers and public transport users). Public transport is in alt
European countries and by far considered to be the safest means of urban transport 78% of all
interviewees said that the risk to public transport users is low; only 17% considered their risk to
be high. The risk to users of other means of transport was perceived as being significantly higher:
Figure 9
Country-by-country scores for public transport vary between Denmark (6% high risk, 90% low
risk) and Italy (25% high risk, 71% tow risk). In each of the member states, however, public
transport is seen as the safest means of transport
For car drivers, the risk is perceived to be much higher; national results vary between on the one
hand Denmark (26% high risk, 73% low risk) and on the other Italy, showing quasi inverted results
(66% high risk. 31% low risk).
-11-
Figure 10
The evaluation of the risk for pedestrians varies between Denmark (35% high risk. 65% low risk)
and the Eastern parts of Germany (69% high risk, 30% low risk).
Finally, the risk for cyclists was perceived to be relatively less dramatic in Portugal (51% high risk.
41% low risk), but very much so in the Eastern parts of Germany (83% high risk. 15% tow risk).
A closer look at the socio-demographic variables reveals a significant difference in perception of
the risk to public transport users between men and women: women (74% low risk) tend to
consider public transport as somewhat less safe than men do (82%). Other categories perceiving
public transport as less safe, compared to the average, are: elderly people in the age group 55+
years (74% low risk), those respondents who have a low opinion leadership index (69%). and the
less educated (71%).
It should be underlined, that these opinions concerning safety are independent from the actual
use of public transport (see chapter III) in daily life. If we look at transport behaviour in daily life.
both public transport users (80% low risk) and non-users (77%) show rather similar opinions.
-12-
Those who have a negative Judgement of the consequences of urban car traffic also have a more
pessimistic opinion on the traffic safety of all means of transport than other citizens:
Those saying that consequences
High risk for...
of care are 'unbearable'
EC average
...eye—
80%
68%
...pedestrians
73%
55%
...car driven
65%
49%
...public transport users
25%
17%
-13-
II) Opinion about traffic planning
A) Which preferential treatment?
The interviewees were asked a series of questions related to the fundamental orientations of traffic
planning and the future support for different means of transport Three concepts were submitted
to their judgement These concepts assumed the existence of conflicts in traffic planning decisions
between private cars and other means of transport (public transport cyclists and pedestrians).
The interviewees were asked, to which means of transport preference should be given in the case
of conflict
Figure 11
The majority of Europeans in all member states are against further preferences given to cars
when conflicts arise with the interests of public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. Of course, the
absolute strength of these convictions varies from country to country. It should be noted as well.
-14-
that the level of "don't knows" was quite high (often reaching about 10%, in some cases even up
to around 20% in Greece and Ireland, and up to around 30% in Portugal). But in all cases
submitted to the judgement of the interviewees, less than 30% opted for further preferences given
to care, in many cases only between 10% and 20%.
A closer look at the case of conflicting planning decisions between public transport and private
cars confirms the above statement The European average in favour of preferential treatment for
public transport reaches 73%, against 14% in favour of cars. This result clearly shows the
importance that citizens attribute to the further development of public transport. Support for the
further development of public transport is even stronger in six member states: Italy (82% favour
public transport: 9% favour cars), Spain (80%: 9%), Luxembourg (79%: 14%). the Netherlands
(78%: 14%), Germany (75%: 14%) and the United Kingdom (74% : 16%). The other countries.
Denmark (69% : 19%), Greece (68% : 11%), Portugal (65% : 7%), Belgium (64% : 22%) and
France (62% : 62%), still have more than an absolute majority in favour of public transport. In
Ireland, which ranks last, almost twice as many citizens (49%) opted in favour of preferential
treatment for public transport than for cars (25%).
This generally positive attitude to the further development of public transport was shared by all
socio-professional groups, but the strength of support varied slightly. On a scale ranking from +1
(= dear preference for cars) to +4 (=clear preference for public transport), the EC average was
3.17. Stronger approval for public transport could be observed among opinion leaders (3.27) and
employed professionals (3.35). Employed.professionals in fact belong to the most frequent users
of tram/underground and train.
As expected, those living and working in urban areas (3.21) and - of course - public transport
users in general (3.33) opt for a further preferential treatment of public transport. But even
frequent car users show a rather high degree of support (3.12). Expressed in percentages, this
means that 45% of car users opted for "preferential treatment for public transport with certain
disadvantages for private cars", and another 29% of car users opted for "clear preferential
treatment for public transport to the detriment of private cars". In the case of conflicting planning
decisions, only 15% opted for preferential treatment for private cars, to the detriment of, or with
certain disadvantages for public transport
As shown in figures 12 and 13, the results obtained from two supplementary questions give
further evidence to the argument that Europeans are dearly against further preferential treatment
for cars where conflicting traffic planning decisions are concerned. In the case of conflicts
-15-
Figure12
Figure 13
between pedestrians and private cars. 75% of all interviewees took the side of pedestrians. This
opinion was supported most strongly in Italy (83%). the UK and the Netherlands (both 80%).
-16-
Spain (79%), and Denmark (78%). Even in Portugal (63%) and Ireland (59%) - the two countries
at the bottom end of the scale - a dear majority opted for further preferential treatment for
pedestrians.
In the case of conflicts between cyclists and private cars, the overall tendency was similar. 64%
of all Europeans took the side of cyclists, as compared to 23% for private cars. Support for
cyclists was very high in the Netherlands (81%), Denmark (76%) and Italy (71%). Again, Ireland
and Portugal showed a relatively weaker support for cyclist: 52% of the Irish opted for further
preferential treatment for cyclists, and 24% for cars. Portugal was the only EC country, that came
dose to a balanced support for cyclists (37%) and cars (30%).
B) Correct judgement by political decision makers.
Interviewees were asked whether they believe that political decision makers in their urban area
have judged people's feelings on traffic planning of the people correctly or not The vast majority
of those expressing an opinion on the subject are convinced that political decision makers
responsible for traffic planning in urban areas do not make the judgements of people's feelings
correctly on these issues.
Before analyzing the national results in greater detail, attention should be drawn to the fact that
this question obtained a particularly high percentage of "don't know" responses, varying between
18% in the UK and 41% in Portugal (average EC 12 = 28%).
The European average of 53% "not judged correctly" compared to only 19% "judged correct"
reveals a lack of confidence in politician's capacity to appropriately react to the desires and
political preferences of their electorate in the field of traffic planning. This opinion is prevailing in
Italy (63% "not judged correctly" : 12% "judged correctly"), in the U.K. (57% : 24%). and in
Germany (55% : 16%). In Greece (53% : 15%), Luxembourg (53% : 27%), Belgium (52% : 14%)
and in the Netherlands (51 %: 22.%). an absolute majority of interviewees shared this perception.
In all other EC countries, the feeling about inaccurate judgements by decision makers was less
wide-spread. However, nowhere did the view that people's feelings were correctly assessed by
political decision makers prevail.
.17-
Figure 14
Figure 15
- 18-
A closer examination of those who think that politicians have a incorrect perception of reality leads
to the following results: a broad majority of citizens are convinced that people are in reality less
in favour of cars than decision makers think they are. Between 26% of all interviewees (in
Portugal) and 44% (in the Eastern part of Germany) share this view, the EC12 average is 36%
The opposite opinion - people being in reality more in favour of cars than politicians think they
are - is supported to a much lesser degree. The maximum was obtained in the Western part of
Germany (21%) and the minimum in Portugal (10%). the European average being 17%.
Socio-professional categories: within the group of those thinking that political decision makers do
judge people's feelings correctly (EC average = 19%), only few variations could be observed: this
option obtained a particularly low score among the independent professionals (12%). A higher
percentage (26%) of supervisors considered the politician's judgement to be correct
The opinion that people are less in favour of cars than politicians believe (EC average = 36%),
is particularly shared by employed professionals (49%), other office employees (44%). and the
middle (42%) and general management (39%). It obtained a particularly low score among
farmers/fishermen (28%), supervisors (26%) and retired people (32%).
For this item. the degree of urbanization and the transport behaviour of the interviewee plays an
important role: 44% of those living and working in an urban area supported the view that
politicians over-estimate people's favourable view of care, compared to 31 % of those neither living
nor working in cities. 41% of public transport users and 36% of car users shared this opinion. It
should be underlined that only 16% of car users believed that politician's judgement is correct
The last option - people being in reality more in favour of cars than politicians believe - only
scored slightly above the EC average (17%) within two groups: the general managers (23%) and
the independent professionals (27%). Finally, only 16% of car users actually said that people in
reality are more in favour of cars than politicians believe.
-19-
Ill) Which means of transport do people use
In the questions analysed until now, the analysis of people's opinion has been dominant We tried
to identify what precisely people in the EC think and believe about certain concepts related to
traffic problems and public transport Now we want to analyse the interviewees' actual behaviour
in this domain. Naturally, this depends not only on their personal preference for one means of
transport or another, but it is largely determined by other factors (existing transport infrastructure
in urban and rural areas, income and the fact of having a car or not, demographic factors, etc.)
Figure 16
In order to identify the mobility of people in everyday life, they were asked for their frequency of
use of various means of transport For our analysis, a specific factor was attributed to each of the
possible answer categories in order to facilitate the comparison and interpretation of the results.
The following scale was used:
-20-
Frequency of use
factor
• (almost) everyday
10
• 1-2 per week
=
5
• 1-3 per month
=
3
• lees than 1 per month
2
• not in past 6 months
1
The average values obtained and represented in the graphics facilitate the comparison of results
for different countries and different means of transport
The summary graph clearly indicates that the direct comparison between the combined results
of public transport (bus, tram/metro/train) on the one hand, and private cars (used as drivers and
passengers) on the other, leads to rather unfavourable results for public transport In fact. the use
of private cars is. in all European countries, significantly higher than the use of public transport
The most favourable result for public transport obtained in the Eastern part of Germany, should
be carefully interpreted. Obviously the situation in the ex-GDR is changing. East Germans have
been using cars less frequently and public transport (and bicycles, etc.) more frequently than
West Germans. These results are linked to a different organisation of social life, and will probably
change toward to the pattern of the ex-FRG in the near future.
On the following pages, we shall analyse in greater detail the results for each of the different
means of transport Although listed as an option during the interviews, taxis have not been
included here for their minor statistical significance3.
' The EC average of use tor taxis is 1.50; the highest results were obtained in Greece (2.37). the U.K. (2.06) and
Luxembourg (2.03)
-21 -
A) Who uses public transport and how often?
The two figures on the previous page show the overall social, demographic, and professional
composition of the group of public transport users. In the following part of this report, the results
obtained for each of the means of public transport shall be analyzed in greater detail
1. Buses: Buses are the means of public transport most widely used in the EC (average = 2.97).
They are particularly popular in Greece (3.76). in the U.K. (3.35) and in Portugal (3.33). The scores
obtained in Luxembourg (3.14), Italy (3.11), Denmark (3.06) and Spain (3.06) are still above the
European average. On the lower end of the scale we find Germany (2.93), the Netherlands (2.64)
Ireland (2.53), France (2.43) and finally Belgium (2.33).
Figure 17
-22-
Figure 18
Figure 19
-23-
When we examine the socio-demographic groups, we observe a significant difference between
men (2.65) and women (3.27) concerning the frequency of using buses. The scores in the
different age groups also show a lot of variation:
15 - 24 years =4.14,
this high index is due to the fact that 24% of all interviewees
in this age group use buses everyday or almost everyday.
The corresponding EC average is 12%.
15-39 years = 2.55;
40 • 54 years = 2.61;
we see that the age groups that are most active in professional life achieve a score that is distinctly below average.
55 years + = 2.84;
use of buses within the group of older people is slightly
below the average.
The highest index among all socio-professional groups was obtained by those who are still
studying (5.0).
Within the different professional groups, buses are relatively popular among office employees
(3.28) and those doing their military service or those who are temporarily not working (3.23). On
the other hand, shop or company owners (1.90), farmers (1.92), the general management (2.13)
and independent professionals (2.26) less often use buses; a fact that can probably be explained
by the transport and flexibility requirements related to their professional activities.
Among those living in an urban area, the frequency of bus use was significantly higher (3.83) than
the EC average; those working in an urban area (3.49) equally obtained an above average score.
Within the group of frequent public transport users, buses were more often used (6.95) than
trains, trams, and metres (4.23).
.24.
2. Tram, Metro, Train:
The European average (2.17) shows that trams, metres and trains are generally less frequently
used than buses. Of course, these results have to carefully interpreted for each country
separately, and must be seen - as was already mentioned before - in an overall perspective of
the existing infrastructure (how many metros/trams exist in the different urban and metropolitan
areas, number of commuters, seriousness of traffic congestion problems, competitiveness of
prices etc.).
Figure 20
Among the national results, the Eastern parts of Germany score highest (2.85), but again we can
suppose that these results will sooner or later be closer aligned to the results obtained in the
Western pans of the country (2.36). The frequency of using trams, metres and trains in the
Netherlands (2.32). Denmark (2.31). France (2.22) and Belgium (2.19) is above the EC average.
Italy (2.13). Spain (2.07). Portugal (2.02). Greece (1.97) and the United Kingdom (1.92) are not
too far below this average. The results from Ireland (1.42) and from Luxembourg (1.10) are
significantly lower.
-25-
A breakdown of the results by socio-demographic categories leads to similar findings regarding
the use of trams, trains or metres as was the case for buses: old people (55 years + = 1.83) are
less frequent users, while young people between 15 and 24 (2.88), those still studying (3.55) and
opinion leaders use these means of public transportation more often.
Within the professional groups, we find the following groups who use trams, metres or trains less
than the average citizen: farmers (1.52) and shop owners (1.61), supervisors (1.88). skilled
manual workers (1.83) and other manual workers (1.92), housewives (1.76) and retired (1.81).
On the other hand, the "white collar" groups tend use trams, trains, and metres more frequently:
professionals (2.60). employed professionals (2.93), the general management (2.52), the middle
management (2.54), and other office employees (2.51) score higher than the average.
The frequency of use of these means of transport obtained a relatively high index (3.00) among
those living and working in urban areas. 2.83 among those only living there, and 3.12 among
those working there.
-26-
B) Private cars
1: Private care as driver. While most people are aware of the negative consequences of car
traffic in urban areas in general, and or. the deterioration of air quality in particular, the same
people continue to use cars as their preferred means of transport in everyday life. The use of
private cars as driver (5.54) obtained by far the highest average score among all means of
transport suggested. On top of that, using private cars as passenger (3.85) clearly scored
second.
Figure 21
Of course these results are related to the variation of wealth within the EC, factors like GNP.
ownership of cars. and road networks. Luxembourg (6.38). France (6.36), Belgium (6.26) and the
Western parts of Germany (6.23) obtained scores above the index 6.00. Denmark (5.96). Italy
(5.80). and the UK (5.58) are placed above the EC average. Then follow the Netherlands (5.45)
and Ireland (5.38) with dose-to-average results. Spain (3.81), Portugal (3.54) and Greece (3.45)
obtain significantly lower scores.
-27-
The analysis of the socio-professional categories leads to results, that could nearly be expected:
men (6.85) drive cars more often than women (4.31), as do the professionally active age groups
(25-39 years = 6.98,40-54 years = 6.50) when compared to young (15-24 years = 4.81) and old
people (55 years + = 4.03). And although opinion leaders are particularly conscious of traffic
problems, they are also well represented among those taking the steering-wheel most frequently:
The data obtained from the different professional groups show plausible results: People working
outside their homes, like farmers, professionals, managers, employees and workers, drive a car
more often than the average, while pensioners, housewives, and soldiers score below the
average.
occupation
average
percentage Within group
driving a ear (almost) everyday
Independent
Professionals
Shop/company owners
Farmers/Fishermen
8.14 .
7.65
7.05
72
67
57
Employed
General management
Professionals
Middle management
Office employees
Other employees
8.60
8.13
7.80
7.17
6.65
77
72
67
61
55
Workers
Supervisors
Skilled manual workers
Other manual workers
8.14
7.46
5.89
73
64
Other
Millitary service
Retired
Housewives
4.82
3.82
3.56
36
47
23
21
-28-
2: Private care as passengers. When compared with the previous section, the data look different
with regard to the distribution of results among both the EC countries and the socio-professional
groups.
When we look at the index expressing the use of private cars as passengers, the EC average
(3.85) is exceeded by the UK (4.39), Belgium (4.36). the Netherlands (4.20). Denmark (4.15) and
Italy (4.09). The results from Greece (3.83), Ireland (3.80), Luxembourg (3.70), Prance (3.68).
Spain (3.59), and Germany are relatively closely grouped together. Portugal (2.75) scores at the
bottom.
Figure 22
With regard to the socio-demographic and professional groups, it was to be expected that the
inverted version of the. previous question's distribution would be found. However, the results did
not show as much variation as before: women (4.46) use cars more often as passengers than
men (3.17). and students (5.34) and young people in general (5.03) more often than the other
age groups (25-39 years = 3.87. 40-54 years = 3.64, 55 years + = 3.22). The professional
categories that scored particularly high for their active use of the car, use it less frequently as
passengers than the average, white housewives (4.56) and soldiers (4.33) score above the
average here.
-29-
C) Bicycles, mopeds and motorbikes.
A comparison of the indices of the use of bikes, mopeds and motorbikes (EC average 2.95)
shows that they are used as often as buses (2.97). But in the case of "two wheels", the national
differences vary to a much larger degree, which is obviously due to the very high results obtained
in two countries: the Netherlands (6.72) and Denmark (5.39). In the Netherlands, 53% of all
interviewees said they use this category of vehicles (almost) everyday (Denmark = 40%. EC
average = 14%). Another 17% of the Dutch use them once or twice per week (Denmark = 14%,
EC average = 12%). Germany (3.88) Belgium (3.64) and Italy (3.14) score above the EC average
as well. The Irish results (2.52) are between the EC-score and the remaining group of countries,
which score around 2.00.
Figure 23
With the exception of young people (4.16). students (4.78) and - at the other end of the scale old people (2.40) and particularly the retired (2.31), no important variations were observed within
the socio-demographic groups.
.31 .
IV) Reasons for not using public transport:
In order to find out precisely what prevents people from using public transportation in daily life,
a list of reasons was presented to the interviewees. The following figure presents an overview of
the importance attached to these reasons.
Figure 24: basis = those using public transport occasionally or never; N = 8855.
On the following pages, we shall examine each of these reasons in closer detail.
-32-
A) Reasons for not using public transport: There are no convenient lines of public transport,
catering for my needs, for example the schedules are not convenient for me or public
transport doesn't go where I want to go.
Throughout the Community, this was the reason most frequently cited (38%) by those who don't
use public transport, when they were asked for their motives.
Figure 25
In some of the countries though, this response was given even more often: in Italy (52%), in
Germany (51%). in Denmark and Luxembourg (43%). and in Belgium (40%), inconvenient lines
were cited very frequently. The same reason was less important for the interviewees in the
Netherlands (36%). in the UK (30%) and in France (27%). It obtained a relatively low score in the
other Southern European countries: Portugal (31%), Greece (24%) and Spain (21%).
Inconvenient lines as a reason for not using public transport were particularly important for
opinion leaders and for the better-educated, while housewives (32%). soldiers (30%) and old
people (27%) considered it as less important
.33-
Looking at professional groups, an interesting phenomenon becomes apparent We have
observed before, that three specific groups, middle management, employed professionals, and
other office employees, were relatively frequent public transport users. Within these same groups
there are a large number of non-users who give the lack of convenient lines as a reason for thenbehaviour:
Prof. group
avenge of PT usage
(EC average = 5.14)
% of non-users citing this reason
(EC= 38%)
supervisors
4.37
54
middle management
&20
53
general management
4.65
51
farmer/fishermen
3.44
51
employed professionals
5.92
52
professionals
4.86
46
other offlce employees
5.79
45
other manual workers
4.77
45
skilled manual workers
4.32
43
More research is needed to conclude whether this phenomenon is a result of pure (selective)
perceptions about the existing facilities, or whether in their case there is an 'objective' lack of
convenient lines. Nevertheless, the lack of convenient lines typically appears to be an argument
used by the active population and the more so by white collar groups.
B) Reasons for not using public transport: Public transport is too slow, takes too long.
Again, the opinion that public transport is too stow was particularly wide-spread in the North of
Europe: in Denmark (36%). the Netherlands and Belgium (35%), and Germany (30%). This
argument was frequently cited in Greece (31%) as well. Italy, Ireland, and the UK (all 27%),
Luxembourg (25%) and Spain (24%) are close to the EC average (27%). In Portugal (21%) and
in France (19%), this reason was slightly less often cited.
As was the case with regard to the previous reason (inconvenient lines) we find that men (30%)
list the slowness more often than women (23%); young people do so more often than old people,
and those situated at the top of the opinion-leadership- and education-scale more often than
others.
-34.
Figure 26
This lack of speed on the part of public transport is of particular importance to the white collar
professions:
general management
office employs
middle management
employed professionals
non-office employees
41%,
38%.
35%.
34%.
32%.
The lack of speed was less important tor workers - with the exception of skilled manual workers
(32%) - and the independent professions.
The lack of speed of public transport is particularly important tor those who are either living and
working (36%) or only working (36%) in urban areas.
-35-
C) Reasons for not using public transport: Public transport is too restricting for me.
Both the country-by-country comparison and the breakdown by professional groups show similar
patterns as before. Non-users of public transport in the Netherlands (33%), Belgium (32%),
Denmark and the UK (25%), and finally Germany and Ireland (24%) cited the argument of public
transport being too restricting more often than the EC average (21 %). France (22%), Luxembourg
(20%) and Italy (18%) are relatively dose to the EC result The other Southern European countries
have significantly lower results: Spain (9%). Greece and Portugal (8%) are below 10%.
Figure 27
The notion that public transport is too restricting was roughly speaking important for the working
population, and more so tor white collar workers. It was particularly wide-spread among
independent professionals (30%). supervisors (34%). skilled manual workers (26%) and - as in
the case of the previous arguments - employed white collar professions: professionals (31%),
middle management (30%), other office employees (26%), and general managers (23%) cited this
argument for not using public transport more often than others (workers, independents, and
housewives).
-36-
For most of the suggested reasons for not using public transport, people working in cities
obtained results dose to the EC average. The degree of urbanization of the interviewees thus did
not play an obvious role - except for two specific arguments: "public transport is slow" and "public
transport is too restricting" Both reasons are important for those who are working in urban areas.
D) Reasons for not using public transport: Public transport is too expensive (EC = 19%) /
public transport is not regular, you cannot trust the schedules (EC = 18%).
Both reasons for not using public transport obtained results close to 20 % on the EC level.
Figure 28
The argument of public transport being too expensive is difficult to compare between member
states because the results are related to different national income structures and varying rates
tor public transport. The argument of cost is frequently listed in the Netherlands (36%). Germany
(31%), Belgium (29%), the UK (28%). and Portugal (25%). The Danish result (19%) equals the EC
average. The remaining countries obtain significantly lower outcomes, ranging from 13% for Spain
to 7% for France at the bottom end of the scale.
-37-
When judging the reliability of public transport schedules, the scope of variation between the
national results is even wider. The argument of unreliable schedules was voiced by the non-users
in Italy (28%) and in the UK (26%). Most of the other countries obtained results between 12%
(Germany) and 21% (Belgium). Unreliable schedules were scarcely cited in two of the EC
countries: in France (8%), and in Denmark (4%).
Figure 29
Apart from those who are still studying ("too expensive" = 26%, "unreliable schedules" = 25%),
no particularly striking variations in results could be observed within the demographic groups.
Support tor the statement that public transport is too expensive varied between 11% (shop
owners) and 23% (middle management and manual workers). (General and middle) management
claim that public transport is too expensive and, at the same time. that public transport is too
slow, the underlying argument being 'time is money'.
The argument of unreliable schedules was particularly often cited among employed professionals
and other office employees (29%). People living and/or working in urban areas gave this answer
more frequently (23-24%) than the EC average.
-38-
E) Various other reasons for not using public transport
As shown before in figure 24, the other motives for not making use of the public transport
network appeared to play an unimportant rote. On the whole. lack of information, physical
problems, the argument that "public transport is not for people like me", or lacking cleanliness
seem hardly to be the reasons that make people run away from public transport. The same is true
for "not feeling safe on public transport" or "unfriendly star.
I am not well informed about public transport services:
On the EC average, 9% of the interviewees gave this reason for not using public transport.
Figure 30
In four of the EC member states, more than 10% non users of public transport said they were not
well informed about public transport services. These countries are Germany (14%). Luxembourg
(12%), Italy and Belgium (11%). Lacking information seemed to be slightly less important for non-
-39-
users in Ireland, in the UK (both 8%), in Denmark and in Greece (both 7%). Only 6% of the nonusers in France and in the Netherlands gave this answer. Finally, missing information about the
services was rarely cited at all in Portugal (4%) and in Spain (3%).
I have physical problems, disabilities which make the use of public transport difficult
5% of all non-users in the EC said that physical problems were one of the reasons not to use
public transport
Figure 31
The frequency of this argument in the 12 member states did not vary significantly. The highest
frequency of this answer was obtained in the UK (8%), while non-users in France (3%), Spain and
Greece (both 3%) cited physical problems less often.
As was expected, the motive of physical problems was particularly often cited by old people (55
years + = 11%, retired = 14%).
-40-
Public transport is not for people like me:
On the EC level, only 5% of those who do not frequently use public transport gave this reason.
Figure 32
A comparison of the national results shows, that this argument was slightly more often cited by
non-users in Ireland (10%). Belgium (8%), Italy (7%). the UK and Spain (both 6%). This reason
hardly plays a role at all for non-users in Luxembourg (3%) and in Germany and Portugal (2%).
Education, age, sex, and opinion leadership index does not seem related to the invoking of this
reason. Slight differences could be observed between some professional groups: independent
professionals (9%) and shop or company owners (7%) gave this answer relatively often, but it was
less important for employed professionals (3%) and general managers (1%).
-41 -
Public transport is dirty:
5% of the non users in Europe said that lack of cleanliness is a reason for them not to use public
transport
This result was more often found among non users in the ex-GDR (15%) and in the UK (12%).
In Greece, Ireland and Portugal (all 3%), in Spain and Luxembourg (both 2%), and in Denmark
and the Netherlands (both 1%), a lack of cleanliness of public transport hardly played a role.
Within the professional groups, three results can be mentioned: employed professionals (14%).
supervisors (11%), and soldiers (10%) cited this argument relatively often.
A final remark: when interpreting these results, it should be kept in mind, that not all of the
reasons for not using public transport have been identified comprehensively; 28% of the
interviewees for this question cited other reasons, which were not included in the originally
preceded reasons for their behaviour.
.43.
V) Reasons for using public transport
The next step of the analysis identifies the motives of those using public transport in daily life. The
following figure presents an overview of the reasons given by public transport users.
Figure 33: basis = those using public transport at least once a week; N = 3719
In a next step. these reasons will be examined more closely.
.44.
A) Reasons for using public transport: Public transport is a comfortable and practical
means of getting around.
On the EC level, this reason tor using public transport was, with 42% by tar most often listen. The
fact that this reason is mentioned more often than the lack of alternative private transport only
adds to its importance.
Figure 34
A closer look at the national results reveals large differences: In Italy (60%) and France (62%).
around 2/3 of the users said that public transport is comfortable and practical Percentages tor
this assessment of public transport outscore the EC average of 42% in Portugal and Belgium
(50%), as well as Luxembourg (46%), Denmark (44%), and Spain (43%). The result obtained from
Irish users follows closely (40%). Results from the Netherlands (35%), the UK (34%) and Greece
(31%) hover around the 1/3 mark, and only Germany (22%) - and especially the ex-GDR (14%) scores rather low.
.45-
Users who can be considered as opinion leaders appeared to be somewhat more critical (++
= 38%, -- = 46%) about the comfort and practicality of public transport
Among professional groups, the differences in results are of a much more distinct nature. The
frequency of citing the argument that public transport is comfortable and practical varies between
12% (farmers) at the bottom end of the frequency scale, and 59% (independent professionals)
at the top.
Public transport users above 55 years of age (47%) mention this reason to a much higher degree
than other age groups.
Other variables, like urbanization, use of different means of transport, or agreement with political
decision makers' judgement, do not seem to be related to the degree of support for this and
most of the following reasons for using public transport.
-46-
B) Reasons for using public transport I dont have a car or motorbike.
Throughout the EC, 35% of public transport users state that they use it, because they do not
possess a personal car or motorbike.
Figure 35
National variations of the results obtained for this argument were wide-spread again. Among the
European public-transport users, this argument was cited most frequently in Ireland (54%) and
in the UK (48%). In five other countries, the frequency of this argument surpassed the EC
average: Denmark (44%). Belgium (42%). Portugal (40%). the Netherlands (38%) and Greece
(36%). Below the EC-average (35%). we encounter Spain (33%). Italy (32%), Luxembourg (31 %),
and Germany (30%); France scores very low with 23%.
Using public transport due to tacking alternatives is particularly important for young people (45%)
and for those still studying (42%). Besides that. ft is interesting to note that men cite this argument
less often than women (32 vs. 37%). as do opinion leaders (33% for those with a high opinion
leadership index, compared to 41% for those with a low index).
-47.
C) Reasons for using public transport: Public transport is cheap.
29% of European public transport users said they do so because it is cheap. Again, results vary
widely by country:
Figure 36
The incentive of a low price is frequently cited in Greece (55%). Italy (41%). and Spain (37%). The
results obtained tor this reason in Denmark (34%), Luxembourg (33%) and the Netherlands (31%)
are clearly situated above the average as well France (30%) and the UK (28%) come dose to the
EC result In Ireland (22%), Portugal (21%), Belgium and Germany (both 16%), the public
transport's price tag does not seem to play a very stimulating role.
The low price is often referred to by the less educated and soldiers (both 34%). As could be
expected, this argument was less frequently cited by the general and the middle management
(22 and 20% respectively). For these rather wealthy income groups, the cost of public transport
does not seem to play an important role in the decision to use it or not The tact that it can save
them time, however, does. Apart from these remarks, very few significant variations were
observed among the socio-demographic and professional groups.
-48-
D) Reasons tar using public transport: Public transport is regular, one can trust the
schedules.
Figure 37
The regularity of public transport schedules stands out in Germany (29%) when compared to the
EC average of 21%. Within this country, we can observe a targe discrepancy between the
Western parts (33%. the highest result), and the Eastern part (14%. EC-wide one of the lowest
results). The results from most of the other countries come in fact very dose to the EC average,
the only significant exceptions being Italy (15%), Spain (14%) and Ireland (13%).
Among the socio-demographic groups, one result particularly stands out 40% of supervisors
using public transport said they do so because they can rely on the schedules. This result
amounts to nearly twice the EC average. Most other demographic and professional groups
deviate only slightly (3-4 percentage points) from the EC result, the only exceptions being the
retired (26%) on the one hand and soldiers (16%) on the other.
.49-
E) Reasons for using public transport: Public transport enables me to save time.
EC-wide, level, 20% of public transport users stated they do so because it enables them to save
time. The national results show a relatively wide diversity. Public transport users in France (33%)
and Portugal (29%) clearly score above the average. Users in Greece and in the Netherlands
(both 5%) seem to attach little value to this argument
Figure 38
When we examine the results among the different professional groups, one conclusion
immediately becomes evident: "saving time" is a major argument in favour of public transport
among the white collar professions, and especially so for independent professionals (48%). The
fact that 27% of the highly educated supported this option as well, provides additional evidence
to this conclusion.
The argument of saving time was one of the few items, where varying results within the different
urbanization-groups could be observed:
.5O-
working in urban ana
27%
living and working in urban area
24%
living in urban area
20%
neither living nor working in urban area
15%
F) Reasons for using public transport: Public transport avoids accidents
Figure 39
The traffic safety of public transport was particularly appreciated by Its users in Italy and in the
ex-GDR (both 24%). The other national results were rather dose to the EC average of 18%.
Portugal (14%) and Prance (13%) rank at the bottom end of the scale in this case.
Once again, opinion leaders and the group of higher educated cited this argument more
frequently than their counterparts in the respective groups.
.51 .
G) Reasons for using public transport: Public transport does not cause much pollution.
Support tor this ecological argument was very unevenly spread throughout the Community. The
EC average of 15% is composed of rather high results obtained in the Netherlands (32%).
Germany (29%), and Denmark (26%) on the one hand. and tow results from public transport
users in Greece and Portugal (both 4%), and France and Ireland (both 6%) on the other. This
argument only moderately motivates users in the remaining countries: Luxembourg (14%), Spain,
the UK and Italy (all 12%), and Belgium (11%).
Figure 40
The environment-friendly quality of public transport was particularly appreciated by. once again,
opinion leaders (24%). and the better educated (23%). It is therefore reflected in a slightly higher
score for white collar workers.
.52.
H) Various other arguments for using public transport
Public transport is modem: This motive was relatively wide-spread among users in the UK (23%)
and Ireland (22%). but was mentioned only by 13% of all European users.
Figure 41
Public transport's modernity plays a role for older people, the lower educated and those with a
low opinion leadership index, supervisors (32%). other manual workers, housewives, soldiers and
retired (all 16%). The different groups of employees all obtained below-average results.
Easy access for old and disabled persons counted in Germany (14%), in the UK (13%), and
in Ireland (11%). and obtained an average of 9% throughout the EC.
Not surprisingly, old people, the ones directly concerned, died this argument nearly twice as
often (17%) as the average citizen, while opinion leaders (5-7%) and the higher educated (5%)
did hardly give it as a reason.
.53-
The cleanliness of public transport was not unimportant for the users in the Netherlands (11%)
and in Germany and Ireland (both 9%), but the EC average of 5% clearly indicates its low overall
significance.
The attitude of the staff obviously played a neglectable role as a motive: the highest results were
obtained in Portugal (8%) and in Ireland (6%), while its 3% EC average represents the lowest
result for any of the possible reasons to use public transport
It should be underlined, that most of the reasons in favour of public transport are also recognized
by those public transport users, who also use other means • especially cars - on a regular basis.
The results obtained for these groups were not distinctively lower than the EC average • in the
specific case of avoiding accidents, car drivers (20%) cited this argument even slightly more often
than the EC average (18%).
Public transport users who have a negative opinion on the consequences of urban car traffic cited
several 'practical' reasons for using public transport more often than others: 44% of those saying
that these consequences are "unbearable" cited public transport's comfort and practicality, 33%
its low price, 21% its time-saving qualities and the motive of avoiding accidents.
.55.
VI) Support for different statements about public transport
A) Confrontation with other kinds of people.
The vast majority of citizens in every member state strongly disapprove of the following statement:
"/ personally do not feel very much at ease when using public transport because I might have to
sit next to people of another nationality, of another race, of another culture or of another social
class.' 89% disagree either slightly or strongly.
Figure 42
If we only consider the two most forceful statements - "agree strongly" vs. "disagree strongly" this unambiguous result becomes even reinforced: only 2% of all interviewees "agree strongly"
with the above statement with regard to other kinds of people, while 72% of all interviewees
"disagree strongly". In France, even though the level of agreement is highest of all member states.
it still only amounts to 14%.
.56-
The same opinion is nearly unanimously shared by all different social, demographic or
professional groups. No significant deviations of the results could be observed. Those who are
actually using public transport, rejected the statement even somewhat more (92%) than the group
of non users (88%).
B) Changes in petrol prices.
Most EC citizens (60%) agree with the statement: 'Up till now. changes in petrol prices have not
altered my use of the car.', but 23% of the Europeans state that they have changed their
behaviour. It should be noted as well. that the percentage of people responding with "don't know"
or giving no answer at all was rather high (EC =17%). especially in the case of Greece (44%)
and Spain (27%).
Figure 43
-57.
Among those who say they actually introduced changes into their use of cars due to changes in
petrol prices, the Greeks are foremost (34%). Luxembourg and Italy (both 31 %), Germany (27%),
and Portugal (24%) still score higher than the EC average. In the other countries, between 17%
and 21 % of respondents indicated a change in the use of cars. Danish car users appeared to be
the least affected (11%) by changing petrol prices.
Several groups among the interviewees claim to have even less frequently altered their use of the
car. Men (65%) seem to be less influenced by changing petrol prices than women (56%).
probably because they are more likely to use a car for professional purposes; the same is true
for the professionally active age groups between 25 and 54 years, for opinion leaders and for the
better educated. A more-than-avarage proportion of all professional groups - with the exception
of other office employees - say that changing petrol prices did not cause them to modify their use
of cars.
As ft was to be expected. 69% of frequent car users claimed not to have changed their behaviour.
against 42% of public transport users. Urbanization did not play a role: city dwellers and
commuters did not change their behaviour more or less frequently than others.
C) Confidence in technological progress
40% of EC citizens agrees with the statement that technological progress will ultimately solve the
problem of traffic congestion, while 44% disagree.
The national differences were distinctly marked. Scepticism about the technological capacities to
solve the problem of traffic congestion was strongest in the UK (54%). Luxembourg (54%), and
the Netherlands (53%). In Italy (47%), Germany (43%), and Belgium (41%), disagreement was still
stronger than agreement In France (41%) and Denmark (40%), respondents had a rather
balanced view hi favour of or against the proposal, while interviewees in Spain, Ireland, Portugal
and Greece tended to have confidence in the problem solving capacities of technological
progress. Once again, the percentage of those who did not express an opinion was rather high
in all countries, varying between 11% in the Netherlands and 32% in Portugal
•58Figure 44
This scepticism was slightly more pronounced among opinion leaders and the better educated,
as well as among independent and employed professionals.
Car users and public transport users do hot disagree on this statement Urbanization did play a
role in the response: the level of agreement was higher among those living and working in rural
areas.
D) Increasing coot for the use of cam.
'Public authorities should contribute to solving the problems of congestion by increasing the cost
of using cars' This statement, implying direct negative consequences on the financial situation
of most interviewees, was obviously unpopular. In the entire Community. 64% of respondents
rejected increasing car costs, and only 29% agreed. In the Netherlands (46% pro vs. 48%
against), the supporters and those opposed were almost in balance. Support for increasing costs
in Spain (42%), Luxembourg (35%). the UK (34%) and in Portugal (31%) was situated at a level
.59-
superior to the EC average, in all other countries, support was rather weak. varying between 27%
in Denmark and 20% in France.
Figure 45
With the only minor exception of those still studying (37% "agree" vs. 55% "disagree"), priceincreasing measures would be equally unpopular among all socio-demographic groups.
It should be underlined that rejection of such cost increases was not exceptionally strong among
car users : 26% of car users even agreed with higher costs. Naturally, support for increasing
costs for cars was stronger among public transport users (35%), but still the majority of this group
(56%) clearly rejected this suggestion. Increasing car costs meets opposition especially among
supervisors and general managers (both 77%). and skilled manual workers (72%).
.61 -
VII. Possible solutions for traffic congestion problems
Seven different concepts for the solution of traffic congestion problems were presented to the
interviewees. They were asked to indicate for each of these concepts, whether they believed that
it constituted an effective or ineffective solution for traffic congestion problems. A detailed analysis
of the strength of support for the different concepts will show, that Europeans are strongly in
favour of developing public transport, but are much less convinced of the effectiveness of other
concepts implying immediate negative financial consequences.
On the following pages, these possible solutions are examined in detail, in decreasing order of
support
A) Developing public transport
Among the various solutions for traffic congestions, developing public transport was strongly
supported by the interviewees. 80% of all EC citizens believed that developing public transport
constituted an effective means to improve the present situation. Only 14% of all interviewees said
it was ineffective. Backing for this solution was strongest in Spain (89%) and Italy (88%). Results
from Germany (80%) and Portugal (79%) were very close to the EC average. In the UK (76%).
Luxembourg (75%), the Netherlands (74%) and France, almost three out of every four
interviewees opted in favour of the further development of public transport In Ireland (70%).
Belgium (66%), and Denmark (63%). supporters of this solution outscored opponents by more
than 2:1.
Support was particularly high among the higher educated and opinion leaders:
-62-
Figure 46
Within the professional groups, white collar professions once again scored very highly:
Those neither living nor working in cities supported the further development of public transport
slightly less frequently (78%) than those living and/or working in urban areas (83-84%). The
evaluation of the consequences of urban car traffic slightly influenced the results: 83% of those
judging these consequences as "unbearable" opted for the further development of public
transport, compared to 'only' 76% of those thinking that the consequences are "bearable".
Even 80% of the car users were of the opinion that this would be an effective solution.
.63.
B) Creating more pedestrian areas.
This solution turned out to be the second most popular solution to traffic congestion problems
among EC citizens. 75% of interviewees believed creating more pedestrian areas to be "effective":
while only 18% believed the measure to be "ineffective". The national results varied within a
relatively narrow margin. Support for pedestrian areas is particularly strong in the ex-GDR (82%).
This result is quite different from the one obtained in the Western part of Germany (64%. the
second lowest). In the group strongly supporting pedestrian areas, we find Spain and the UK
(both 80%), Italy (79%), Greece and France (both 78%), Portugal and Ireland (both 76%), and
Belgium (75%). Luxembourg (74%) and the Netherlands (72%) are not far below the EC-average,
and only Germany (67%), and Denmark (57% "effective", vs. 36% "ineffective") are not so very
convinced of the effectiveness of more pedestrian areas as a solution to traffic congestion.
Figure 47
.64.
C) Limiting car traffic in town centres.
The two previous approaches to finding a solution to the problem of traffic congestion can be
defined as 'constructive' ones: at first sight, they do not involve personal limitations upon interviewees.
The next possible solution is the first one posing direct and concrete restrictions on many people.
Still, limiting car traffic in town centres was widely perceived as an effective measure. Throughout
EC. 71% of interviewees opted for, and only 22% against this particular measure. Support for
limiting car traffic was strongest in Denmark (81 %), followed by Italy (78%). the UK (76%), Ireland
(74%), the Netherlands (73%). Luxembourg (72%), and Spain (71%). Germany (69%), Portugal
(68%), Greece (65%), France (63%), and Belgium (62%) scored under the average. Nevertheless.
all member states displayed an absolute majority of those of the opinion that strictly limiting car
traffic in town centres was an effective solution.
Figure 48
.65Once again, opinion leaders and the better educated supported this option to a relatively great
extent. Support for this solution from white collar professions was higher than the EC average.
Supervisors (67%) and skilled manual workers (66%) showed the lowest degree of support of all
professional groups.
The hypothesis that support for traffic limitations would be influenced by the evaluation of the
consequences of urban car traffic, was confirmed by the results. 74% of those saying that these
consequences are "unbearable* opted in favour of car traffic limitations.
It is interesting to observe that respondents who are living or working in urban areas (71-72%)
have the same opinion on traffic limitations in dty centres as respondents from rural areas. The
same is true for frequent car users.
D) Building new urban highways.
A glance at the graph clearly shows that the issue of new urban highways is a highly controversial
one in the EC. In this sense, the calculated average of 59% "effective" and 29% "ineffective" should
be carefully interpreted. A closer look at the national result reveals considerable contrasts in
judgement as far as new urban highways are concerned:
In the Netherlands (73%) and in Denmark (70%). a very large majority of the interviewees is
against new motorways as a remedy for traffic congestion. Only about a fifth of the whole
population there is convinced of their effectiveness. In Luxembourg (51%) and in the Western
parts of Germany (44%), resistance against new urban highways is much lower, but is still more
important than support for them. In the UK (43%), Germany as a whole (39%). and Belgium
(38%), respondents who are against this measure are already outscored by supporters. In Ireland
and the mediterranean EC countries, those thinking that new highways are an effective solution
for traffic congestion problems constitute a very broad majority. France (19%). Spain (16%),
Greece (15%). Italy (10%). and Portugal (5% "ineffective" against 82% "effective") clearly opt in
favour of new urban highways - a fact that could partly be explained by the present state of the
highway infrastructure in these countries, which might be perceived as insufficient
.66
Figure 49
This (tern was one of the few, where a difference in perception between men and women became
visible: 62% of the men said that new urban highways were "effective", whereas only 56% of
women were of this opinion. Within the professional groups and sub-groups, the support for new
highways was in fact very diverse, ranging from general management (47% "effective") to
independent professionals (66%) and shop owners (68%).
Once again, the degree of urbanization hardly influenced the results. Support for new urban
highways was similar among city dwellers, commuters and non-city dwellers:
Support for new urban highways was neither exceptionally strong (61%) among car users, nor
exceptionally weak (56%) among public transport users. But it is remarkable that a relatively high
percentage (64%) of those who think that consequences of urban car traffic are "unbearable"
opted for new urban highways as a solution for traffic congestion problems.
-67-
A closer look at the other results obtained by those who think that new urban highways are an
effective solution shows that this specific group seems to be at least somewhat incoherent in its
opinion. The same people that believe in the effectiveness of new urban highways, turned out to
be outspokenly critical of cars in previous questions:
65% of them said that car traffic in urban areas has gotten somewhat worse;
58% of them said that consequences of car traffic in urban areas are "hardly bearable" or
even "unbearable";
76% of them said that cars are the main cause or an important cause of the deterioration
of the air quality in urban centres; 43% of them even said that cars are harmful to the air
quality in their own living area.
74% of them opt for further preferential treatment of public transport instead of cars in the
case of conflicting traffic planning decisions;
and, finally, 72% of them think that "strictly limiting car traffic in town centres" is an effective
means to solve traffic congestion problems.
E) Tight parking restrictions in centres.
As in the previous case. the support for this solution varied widely among the different member
states. In Ireland (78%) and Luxembourg (74%). roughly three out of every four interviewees
believed in the efficiency of parking restrictions. Support was very high in Greece (67%). the UK
and Denmark (both 65%), Portugal (64%), Germany (61%), and Spain (58%). These countries
scored well above the EC average of 53% of interviewees thinking that tight parking restrictions
in town centres constitute an "effective" solution to traffic congestion. In the Netherlands, the
group of supporters was slightly smaller, but continued to make up a majority (52%). In Belgium
(40%). France and Italy (both 38%), tight parking restrictions were not very much favoured as an
effective solution against traffic congestion.
.68-
Figure 50
Opinion leaders displayed a slightly stronger support (58% "effective") for parking restrictions than
others. Those between 25 and 39 years of age were critical: 49% considered the restrictions as
"effective", against 45% who found them "ineffective". Vvithin the professional groups, the results
were comparably varied as for the previous item. Employed professionals (63%) were more
convinced of this solution than independent professionals (49%) or office and non-office
employees (46% and 49% respectively).
As for the suggestion of strictly limiting the access of cars to crty centres, it was surprising to see
that tight parking restrictions were not categorically refused by car users: on the contrary, 52%
of them were of the opinion that such restrictions were an effective solution.
-69-
F) Motorist toll for entering urban centres.
This solution, which entails immediate costs for anyone entering a city by car. was the secondmost unpopular. In no member state, support was greater than rejection. The EC average • 65%
"ineffective" against 25% "effective" - clearly shows the low degree of acceptance this measure
could count on. Among the member states, Denmark scored exceptionally high: 45% of its
citizens were in favour of an urban toll system, no less than 10 percentage points more than in
the following country. In Ireland and Luxembourg (both 35%), and the UK (34%), about one third
of interviewees supported this solution. Germany (27%), Italy and the Netherlands (both 24%) are
relatively close to the EC average. In the other countries, weak levels of support varied between
21% in Spain and 17% in France.
Figure 51
All socio-demographic and professional categories, including the breakdown by urbanization,
transport behaviour, or perception of politicians' realism, agreed to a similar extent on the
ineffectiveness of motorist-tolls. The only exceptional result was the relatively high degree of
support for this solution among employed professionals (39%).
.70.
G) Putting up petrol prices.
Figure 52
While a motorist-toll would only affect those who actually enter a city by car, increasing petrol
prices would have to be paid by every car user. whether they are adding to urban traffic
congestion or not That might be the reason why this solution was even more unpopular than the
previous one. At the EC level, only 12% of interviewees considered higher prices to be an
effective means to reducing traffic congestion; 80% were convinced of its ineffectiveness. The level
of those saying that higher petrol prices were "effective" was highest in the Netherlands, where
a quarter of the population accepted them. Support was relatively strong in Luxembourg (22%).
Germany (16%). Denmark and the UK (15%), and Ireland (12%). Stronger objections were
encountered in Portugal and Spain (both 10% "effective"), Belgium (9%). Greece (9%). Italy (7%).
and France (5% "effective", against 89% "ineffective").
-71
Conclusion
The results of this survey dearly show, that most Europeans are aware of the seriousness of
traffic problems in urban areas. In the opinion of the majority of European citizens, a negative
development has taken place over the last years: car traffic has got worse (65%), the
consequences of urban car traffic are hardly bearable or even unbearable (56%), 76% believe that
the car is either the main cause or an important cause for the deterioration of air quality in urban
centres, and the risk of accidents tor most of the participants - with the only exception of public
transport users • is perceived as considerably high.
In such a situation, a majority of all interviewees (53%) thinks, that urban political decision makers
do not judge people's feelings concerning traffic planning correctly; more than one third of all
Europeans said, that in reality people are less in favour of cars than these politicians believe they
are.
An even stronger majority of citizens is against further preferential treatment of private cars, when
conflicts arise in traffic planning decisions. In the case of a conflict between cars and other means
of transport, 75% of all interviewees opted for preferential treatment for pedestrians, 73% for
public transport, and 64% for cyclists.
In spite of the respondents' knowledge about the negative impact of car traffic in urban zones,
the private car remains the most frequently used means of transport When asked for their
reasons for not using public transport, many non-users listed the following reasons : no
convenient lines (38%), lacking speed of public transport (27%), or the feeling that public
transport is too restricting (21%), too expensive (19%) or simply unreliable (18%). Other reasons.
like the attitude of public transport staff, the cleanliness or users' feeling of safety obviously only
played a minor rote. Within the group of public transport users, the corresponding, essentially
practical arguments were most frequently cited when asked for the reasons for using public
transport
When asked for their degree of support for several statements related to traffic and public
transport, Europeans responded as follows:
-72.
a very broad majority (89%) disagree with people who say "/ do not feel very much at
ease when using public transport because I might have to sit next to people of another
nationality, of another race, of another culture or of another social class '.
most citizens (60%) said not to have altered their use of the car due to changing petrol
prices;
a comparable percentage (64%) of citizens disagrees with the statement, that public
authorities should contribute to solving the problem of (traffic) congestions by increasing
the cost of using cars.
opinions on whether technological progress will ultimately solve the problem of traffic
congestion are rather balanced: 40% agree, 44% disagree.
Finally, when asked for the effectiveness of various measures to solve traffic congestion problems.
most of the Europeans (80%) think that developing public transport is "effective". Support is high
for the creation of more pedestrian areas (75% "effective"), or limiting car traffic in town centres
(71% "effective"). Other measures, like the creation of new urban highways or tight parking
restriction in centres were considered "effective" by a majority, but contested by a significant part
of the interviewees. Other measures, that would imply direct financial consequences, were
considered as "ineffective" by most of the interviewees.
Appendix I
Technical specifications of EUROBAROMETER 35.1
EUROBAROMETER 35.1
UNION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT (U.LT.P).
Entre le 28 mare et to 25 avril 1991. INRA
(EUROPE) a réalisé la vague 35.1 de l'EUROBAROMETRE STANDARD, à la demande de te
COMMISSION DES COMMUNAUTES EUROPEENNES et de ('UNION INTERNATIONALE
DES TRANSPORTS PUBLICS (U.l.T.P).
INRA(Europe) is a European Network of Market- and Public Opinion Research agencies,
co-ordinated by the European Co-ordination
Office (E.C.O.), Avenue R. Vandendriessche 18.
B-1150 Brussels.
INRA (EUROPE) est une chaîne Européenne
d'instituts de sondage d'opinion publique et
d'études de marché, coordinée par le Bureau
de Coordination Européen (E.C.O.), Avenue R.
Vandendriessche 18, B -1150 Bruxelles.
The results of the Eurobarometer are made
available through the Unit "Surveys, Research,
Analyses" of the DG ICC of the Commission
of the European Communities. All requests
for further information should be addressed to
Mr. Karlheinz REIF. DG X - ICC - SRA. "Eurobarometer'. Rue de la Loi 200. B-1049 Brussels.
Les résultats de l'Eurobarometre sont disponibles à travers l'Unité "Sondages. Recherches.
Analyses" de la DG ICC de te Commission de»
Communautés Européenne*. Toute demande d'information supplémentaire doit être
adressée à Mr. Kartheinz REIF. DG X - ICC SRA. "Eurobarométre". Rue de te Loi 200. B •
1049 Bruxelles.
All Eurobarometer data are stored at the Zentral
Archiv (Universitât Köln, BachemerStrasse. 40.
D-5000 Kôln 41). They are at the disposai of all
Institutes members of the European Consortium for Political Research (Essex), of the InterUniversity Consortium for Political and Social
Research (Michigan) and all those interested in
social science research.
Toutes les données relatives aux Eurobaromètrès sont déposées au ZentralArchiv (Universe
tât Kôln. Bachemer Strasse, 40. D-5000 Kôln
41). Elles sont tenues à la disposition des organismes membres du European Consortium
for Political Research (Essex), du Inter-Univer-sity Consortium for
Between March 28 and April 25. 1991. INRA
(EUROPE) carried out the 35.1 wave of the
STANDARD EUROBAROMETER, on request of
the COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES and of the INTERNATIONAL
search (Michigan) et des chercheurs justifiant
d'un intérêt de recherche.
DETAILS ON SAMPLING
L'ECHANTILLONNAGE
In ail 12 countries of the European Community.
in total 13.149 national citizens, of 15 years and
over. were Interviewed in face-to-face, in their
private residence.
Dans les 12 pays-membres de te Communauté
Européenne, au total 13.149 citoyens nationaux de 15 ans et plus ont été interrogés en
face-à-face à leur domicile.
COUNTRY/PAYS
Belgique
Danmark
Deutschland (ex-BRD)
Deutechland (ex-RDA)
Ellas
Espana
France
Ireland
Italia
Luxembourg
Nederland
Portugal
UK: Great Britain
UK: Northern Ireland
The basic sample design applied In all Member
States is a mum-stage, random (probability)
one. In all Member States a number of sampling
points was drawn with probability proportional
to population size. for a total coverage of each
Member State, and to population density.
For doing so, the points were drawn systematically from all "administrative regional units",
after stratification by Individual unit and type of
area. They thus represent the whole territory of
the Member States according to the EUROSTAT.NUTS II and according to the distribution
of the national, resident population in terms of
metropolitan, urban and rural areas.
In each of the selected sampling points, a starting address was drawn, at random. That starting address formed the first of a duster of
addresses. The remainder of the duster was
selected as every Nth address by standard
random route procedures from the initial address.
In Great Britain, a full random selection of respondents was applied, using electoral registers as sampling basis.
In each household the respondent was selected according to a random procedure, such as
the first birthday method or the KISJ-grid. At
every such address up to 2 recalls were made
to achieve an interview with that respondent
The maximum number of interviews per household is one. All interviews were taken face to
face.
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
NOMBRE DE REPONDENTS (NON PONDÉRÉ)
1021
1000
1031
1046
1005
1000
1070
1048
1074
509
980
1000
1059
306
Le principe d'échantillonnage, appliqué dans
tous les pays-membres est une sélection aléatoire à multiples phases. Dans tous les paysmembres un certain nombre de points de chute
sont tirés avec probabilité proportionnelle à la
taille de la population, avec couverture totale
de chaque état-membre, et à la densité de la
population.
Les points de chute sont tirés systématiquement dans chacune des "unités régionales administratives". après stratification par unité et
type de région. On représente ainsi le territoire
complet de chaque pays-membre, selon les
régions EUROSTAT-NUTS 11 et selon la distribution de la population nationale en termes d'urbanisation.
Dans chacun des points de chute, une adresse
de départ est imposée, qui est sélectionnée
aléatoirement Cette adresse est la première
d'un duster d'adresses. Les autres adresses du
duster sont sélectionnées comme chaque
adresse N. par procédure standardisée de "random route" de l'adresse Initiale.** En GrandeBretagne. une sélection purement aléatoire des
repondants est appliquée, utilisant les listes
électorales comme base de sélection.
Dans chaque ménage le repondant est sélectionné selon une procédure aléatoire, comme
la méthode du premier anniversaire ou la grille
dite KISJ. A chaque adresse, jusqu'à 2 révisites
sont faites pour réaliser une interview avec la
personne sélectionnée. Pas plus d'une interview par ménage n'est admise. Toutes les interviews sont réalisées en face à face.
REALISATION OF THE FIELD-WORK
COUNTRY/PAYS
REALISATION DU TERRAIN
FROM: / DU:
Belgique
Danmark
Deutschland (ex-BRD)
Deutschland (ex-RDA)
Ellas
Espana
France
Ireland
Italia
Luxembourg
Nederland
Portugal
United Kingdom
01/04
09/04
03/04
04/04
09/04
04/04
28/03
04/04
04/04
30/03
02/04
01/04
02/04
EC12
TO:/AU:
22/04
22/04
16/04
15/04
21/04
23/04
19/04
25/04
17/04
25/04
23/04
16/04
20/04
POPULATION
TOTAL:
7994.4
4160.4
51708.0
13607.0
7825.6
29427.2
43318.5
2501.3
45902.8
302.6
11603.6
7718.7
45721.1
271791-2
In all member States, fieldwork was conducted
on the basis or detailed and uniform instructions prepared by the European Co-ordination
Office (ECO) of INRA (EUROPE).
Dans chacun des pays-membres le terrain est
réalisé sur base d'Instructions détaillées et uniformes. préparées par le Bureau Européen de
Coordination (ECO) de INRA (EUROPE).
COMPARISON BETWEEN
SAMPLES AND UNIVERSES
AND WEIGHTING OF THE DATA
COMPARAISON DES ECHANTILLONS
AVEC LA POPULATION
ET PONDERATION
For each of the countries a comparison between the samples and a proper universe description was carried out. This Universe
description was made available by the National
Research Institutes and by EUROSTAT.
Pour chacun des pays une comparaison entre
les échantillons et les chiffres de ta population,
description d'univers, est réalisée. Les chiffres
d'univers sont mis à ta disposition par les Instituts Nationaux et par EUROSTAT.
For all EC-member-countries a national weighPour tous les pays-membres une procédure de
ting procedure, using marginal and intercellular
weighting,
was carried
out sur
based
this
pondération
nationale
est réalisée,
deson
données marginales ou croisées, tirées de cette
Universe description. As such in all countries.
description d'univers. Ainsi, dans tous les pays,
minimum sex. age. region NUTS II and size of
au moins le sexe. l'âge, les régions NUTS II et
locality were introduced in the Iteration proceta taille de l'agglomération sont Introduits dans
dure. For some countries extra variables were
ta procédure d'itération. Pour certains pay
added, when considered necessary.
des variables supplémentaires sont Introduites
si nécessaire.
For international weighting INRA (EUROPE)
applies the officia) population figures aged 15
years and older as published by EUROSTAT in
the Regional Statistics Yearbook of 1988. The
total population figures tar input in this postweighting procedure are listed above.
Pour pondérer au plan international. INRA (EUROPE) applique les données officielles de ta
population de 15 ans et plus, publiées par EUROSTAT dans l'Annuaire 1988 des Statistiques
Régionales. Les chiffres exacts Introduits dans
cette routine de post-pondération sont résumés dans le tableau précédent.
ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONAL UNITS
UNÎTES ADMIMISTRATIVES REGIONALES
Appendix II
Description of the sample
Appendix III
Questionnaire